APR14   1927 


/z, 


[OMl  SU 


Section 


f-^       ~T 


yy/Jli    -cui-o/»-'< 


THE    COMPOSITION    OF    THE    BOOK 
OF    DANIEL. 


BY 

GEORGE  A.   BARTON,  PX,  •  ^. 

Bryu  Matvr,  Penn. 

Reprinted  from  the  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature  xvii.  62-86,  Boston,   1898. 


THE    COMPOSITION    OF    THE    BOOK 
OF   DANIEL. 


GEORGE  A.   BARTON, 
Bryn  Mawr,  Pentt. 


Reprinted  from  the  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature  xvii.  62-86,  Boston,  i{ 


The  Composition  of  the  Book  of   Daniel. 

PROF     GEORGE   A.    BARTON. 

BRYN    MAWR,    PENN. 

1.    Previous  Theories. 

SINCE  the  Neo-Platonic  Porphyry  at  the  end  of  the  third  cen- 
tury A.D.  put  forth  his  theory  that  the  book  of  Daniel  was  com- 
posed by  a  Palestinian  Jew  in  the  days  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  the 
book  has  been  the  subject  of  much  interesting  discussion.  It  has 
attracted  students  of  all  sorts  as  a  candle  does  moths  on  a  summer 
night,  and  though  many  have  singed  their  wings,  few  have  imparted 
to  their  successors  a  sufficient  dread  of  their  painful  experience  to 
deter  others  from  flying  towards  the  attractive  but  fateful  candle. 
Those  whose  morbid  fancy  leads  them  to  contemplate  unduly  the 
"last  things"  have  sought  to  fathom  the  mystery  of  its  symbolic 
numbers  ;  the  critically  minded  have  tried  to  demonstrate  its  Macca- 
bsean  origin  ;  the  scholarly  orthodox  have  endeavored  to  prove  that 
it  is  a  genuine  exilian  work  of  Daniel ;  while  a  few  critics  have 
appeared  who  would  divide  it  between  two  or  more  authors. 

It  is  with  considerable  hesitancy  that  I  venture  to  express  on  such 
a  book  views  which  differ  in  some  respects  from  those  of  all  my  prede- 
cessors ;  but,  having  reached  the  conclusion  that  the  work  is  com- 
posite, and  that  the  analysis  must  proceed  on  lines  different  from  any 
hitherto  attempted,  I  have  ventured  to  propose  a  new  solution  of  the 
problem,  in  the  hope  that  it  may  contribute  something  to  the  dis- 
covery of  the  truth. 

That  Daniel  is  an  Apocalypse  and  not  a  prophecy,  is  now  so  gen- 
erally accepted  as  to  need  no  proof.  That  it  is  a  product  of  the 
Maccabaean  and  not  of  the  exilic  age  has  been  so  abundantly  demon- 
strated by  others  that  it  may  pass  without  further  discussion.  The 
attempts  hitherto  made  to  detect  differences  of  authorship  in  Daniel 
have  not  met  with  marked  success.  So  far  as  I  know,  Spinoza  was 
the  first  to  doubt  the  unity  of  the  book.  In  his  Tractatus  Theologico- 
Politicus,  X,  he  declares  that  ch.  8-12  were   no  doubt  written  by 


BARTON  :    THE    COMPOSITION    OF    THE    BOOK    OF    DANIEL.  63 

Daniel,  but  suspects  that  ch.  1-7  are  extracts  from  the  annals  of  the 
Chaldaean  kingdom.  Sir  Isaac  Newton  in  his  Odserrjations  upon  the 
Prophecies  0/  Daniel  and  the  Apocalypse  of  St.  John,  p.  10/  held  that 
the  last  six  chapters  contained  prophecies  written  at  several  times  by 
Daniel  himself,  while  the  first  six  are  a  collection  of  historical  papers 
written  by  others.  Similarly  Beausobre-  held  that  the  first  six  chap- 
ters were  not  written  by  Daniel,  but  that  his  prophecies  begin  with 
the  seventh. 

Towards  the  close  of  the  last  century  and  in  the  early  part  of  the 
present,  the  idea  that  Daniel  is  not  a  unity  was  revived  by  Michaelis, 
Eichhorn,  and  Bertholdt.  J.  D.  Michaelis,  in  consequence  of  certain 
phenomena  in  the  version  of  the  LXX,  held  that  ch.  3-6  did  not 
belong  to  the  original  work.-''  Eichhorn  divided  the  book  into  two 
parts,  ch.  2-6  forming  one,  and  ch.  i,  7-12  the  other.  The  former 
part,  he  held,  was  a  tradition  concerning  Daniel  written  by  an  earlier 
Jew,  upon  which  the  latter  part  was  engrafted  by  a  Jew  of  the  time 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 

Bertholdt  in  his  Daniel  neu  itbersetztund  erkllirt  (Erlangen,  1806), 
is  more  thorough-going  than  any  of  his  predecessors.  He  divides 
Daniel  among  nine  different  authors  as  follows  :  i.  Chapter  i, 
which  he  dates  in  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus  ;  2.  Chapter 
2,  which  he  assigns  to  the  time  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus ;  3.  Chap- 
ter i^^,  written  in  the  Greek  period  later  than  ch.  2  ;  4.  Chapter 
3'^-4,  which  he  places  late  in  the  Greek  period;    5.  Chapters  5  and 

6,  to  which  he  assigns  no  higher  antiquity  than  in  the  case  of  the  pre- 
vious section ;  6.  Chapter  7,  from  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  ; 

7.  Chapter  8,  written  after  the  death  of  Epiphanes  ;  8.  Chapter  9,  writ- 
ten after  Antiochus  Epiphanes  had  defiled  the  temple  ;  and  9.  Chap- 
ters 10-12,  which  he  assigns  to  the  same  reign,  but  to  a  somewhat 
later  period.     Bertholdt  was  followed  in  this  analysis  by  Augusti. 

Meinhold  in  three  different  publications*  has  within  a  few  years 
revived  the  theory  of  Eichhorn.  He  separates  ch.  2-6  from  the  rest 
of  the  book,  dating  them  about  300  b.c,  and  regards  the  rest  as  Mac- 
cabaean.      Strack^  in  1885  held  that  a  book  of  stories  about  Daniel 

London,  1732.  ^  Jiemarques  sur  U  nouveau  Testament,  i-j ^2. 

3  Cf.  his  Uberseizung  des  A.  T.  —  Anmerkimgett  zum  Proph.  Dan.,  p.  22,  and 
his  Orientalische  und  Exegetische  Bibliothek  iv.  26-30. 

*  Die  Composition  des  B.  Daniel,  1884,  Beitrdge  zur  Erkldrung  des  B.  Dan., 
1888,  and  Daniel  \n  Strack  &  Zockler's  Kg/.  Kom.,  1889. 

szockler's  Handhtuh  der  theologischen  Wissenschaften  i.  171-173;  Einleitung 
in  das  A,  T.,  1888,  p.  69  ff. ;  Herzog's  Realencyclopddie  vii.  419. 


64  JOURNAL   OF    BIBLICAL   LITERATURE. 

was  issued  in  Aramaic  in  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great,  to  which 
the  visions  were  added  in  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  In  the 
latest  edition  of  his  Einleiting  (1895),  ^^  appears  to  have  receded 
from  this  position.'' 

Lagarde''  expressed  the  opinion  in  1891  that  Daniel  is  a  collection 
of  disconnected  pamphlets,  some  of  which,  viz.,  ch.  7  and  9-12, 
were  unknown  to  Josephus  and  were  not  written  till  69  a.d.^ 

On  the  other  hand,  most  scholars  hold  firmly  to  the  unity  of  the 
book.  Bleek''  dismisses  the  idea  of  a  duality  of  authorship  in  a  few 
words.  Schrader^"  likewise  gives  little  consideration  to  that  point  of 
view.  Budde  in  his  review  of  Meinhold's  theory  {Literaturzeitinig 
1888,  No.  26)  rejects  it.  Cornill"  argues  strongly  for  the  unity  of 
the  work,  and  suggests^-  that  the  great  haste  in  which  the  book  was 
composed  accounts  for  the  "wood-cut  fashion"-  {Holzschnittmanier') 
of  the  author.  Konig,^''  Behrmann,"  Driver,^^  Bevan,^*'  and  Kamphau- 
sen '"  may  be  put  in  the  same  class,  though  Driver  admits  ^^  that  per- 
haps not  enough  weight  has  been  given  to  Meinhold's  arguments ; 
while  von  Gall  ^^  in  a  work  devoted  to  the  demohtion  of  Meinhold's 
theory  endeavors  to  demonstrate  the  unity  of  the  book. 

With  the  exception  of  Bertholdt's  work  the  analyses  of  Daniel 
which  have  been  proposed  are  based  on  the  difference  of  form  which 
appears  when  ch,  1-6  are  compared  with  ch.  7-12.  Chapters  1-6 
are  narratives  in  which  Daniel  is  spoken  of  in  the  third  person,  while 
ch.  7-12  are  visions  which  Daniel  himself  recounts  in  the  first  person. 
The  replies  to  these  arguments  have  been  based  chiefly  on  the  two 
facts  that  the  different  parts  exhibit  the  same  historical  environment, 

^  See  pp.  145,  146. 

■^  Goltingische  gelehrte  Anzeigen,  1891,  p.  508  ff.  Behrmann,  Das  Buck  Daniel, 
p.  XV,  mistakenly  attributes  this  to  Reuss. 

8  Cf.  Konig,  Eiiileitting  in  das  A.  T.,  p.  384. 

9  Introduclion  to  the  Old  Testament,  translated  from  the  German  ed.  of  1865 
by  Venables,  18S8,  Vol.  ii.,  p.  199  ff.  He  had,  however,  expressed  his  views 
more  at  length  in  the.  Jahrl>iiche>-  fiir  deutsche  Theologie,  i860. 

I''  DeWette's  Einleitung,  8  ed.,  1869. 
^^  Einleitung  in  das  A.  T.,  p.  259. 

12  Die  siebzig  Jahrivocheti  Daniels,  p.  31  n. 
1^  Einleitung  in  das  A.  T. 

^*  Das  Buck  Daniel,  in  Nowack's  Handkommentar. 

1^  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Test. 

ifi  The  Book  0/ Daniel,  C2imhx\<\gQ,  1892. 

I''  The  Book  of  Daniel  in  Hebrew,  in  Haupt's  Sacred  Books  of  the  Old  Test. 

18  Of.  cit.,  pp.  482,  483. 

13  Die  Einheitlichkeit  des  Buches  Daniel,  Giessen,  1895. 


BARTON  :    THE   COMPOSITION   OF   THE    BOOK   OF   DANIEL.  65 

and  that  the  similarity  of  language  and  of  conception  in  the  different 
parts  implies  unity  of  authorship.  Against  the  first  of  these  arguments, 
as  will  appear,  we  have  nothing  to  say,  but  the  second  of  them, 
though  valid  as  against  divisions  of  the  book  hitherto  proposed,  has 
some  striking  points  of  weakness  which  its  advocates  have  over- 
looked. In  my  judgment  Bertholdt  has  come  nearer  than  any  other 
writer,  unless  it  be  Lagarde,  to  an  appreciation  of  the  real  character 
of  the  book,  though  he  erred  in  assigning  widely  different  dates  to 
the  different  parts,  and  in  finding  the  work  of  too  many  authors  in 
the  book. 

Before  passing  in  review  the  contents  of  Daniel,  a  word  should  be 
said  with  reference  to  the  languages  in  which  it  is  written.  As  is 
well  known,  the  portion  of  the  book  between  ch.  2*  and  7^  is  in 
Aramaic,  while  the  rest  exists  in  Hebrew.  This  Aramaic  section 
crosses  the  line  between  ch.  6  and  7,  where  the  division  in  the  book 
has  usually  been  made  by  critics,  and  cannot  well  be  made  an  ele- 
ment in  the  analysis.  Chapter  7,  which  belongs  to  the  visions,  is 
written  in  the  Aramaic  tongue,  in  which  the  history  is  narrated. 

On  the  whole,  the  best  explanation  of  the  presence  of  the  two 
languages  is  that  now  accepted  by  several  scholars^  who  hold  that  it 
was  written  in  Hebrew,  and  that  then  the  author,  or  some  friend  of 
his,  issued  an  Aramaic  edition.  Later,  when  a  part  of  the  Hebrew 
was  in  time  of  persecution  lost,  its  deficiency  was  supplied  from  the 
Aramaic  version,  hence  the  present  bi-lingual  form  of  the  book. 

It  is,  however,  in  this  Aramaic  portion  that  those  expressions  occur 
upon  which  most  writers  rely  for  those  earmarks  of  style  by  which 
they  prove  unity  of  authorship.-'  If,  however,  it  should  appear  that 
the  so-called  author,  who  may  have  made  the  Aramaic  version,  was 
simply  an  editor  who  compiled  the  work  and  wrote  the  preface 
(ch.  i),  the  marks  of  style  might  then  conceivably  be  due  to  the 
liberty  which  the  translator  allowed  himself  Some  features  of  the 
case,  which  will  appear  more  clearly  at  a  later  point,  render  this 
supposition  improbable. 

^•^  Cf.  Bevan,  op.  cit.,  p.  27,  and  Haupt  on  2*  in  Kamphausen's  Daniel  in 
Hebreiv. 

21  The  phrase  " peoples,  nations,  and  tongues"  (K^?tf''?1  KJ)2^»  i^'*?^!?)  occurs 
in  24.7.29  .^31  (^1)  ^19  526  yi4^  and  not  elsewhere  in  Daniel.  The  phrases  "God  of 
heaven,"  "  Lord  of  heaven,"  and  "  King  of  heaven,"  for  which  Professor  Moore 
claims  that  our  author  has  a  predilection  (this  Journal,  xv.  193),  are  found  in  the 
Aramaic  portion  (cf.  ch.  2}^-  ^^  5^^  and  4^),  but  we  look  in  vain  for  them  else- 
where. These  are  but  examples.  The  most  striking  characteristics  of  style  are 
in  the  Aramaic  sections. 


66  JOURNAL   OF    BIBLICAL    LITERATURE. 

Noting,  then,  the  fact  that  the  presence  of  the  Aramaic  tongue 
cannot  be  urged  in  favor  of  a  duaUty  of  authorship,  and  the  further 
fact  that  those  marks  of  style  which  have  been  most  forcibly  urged 
against  a  critical  analysis  are  in  the  Aramaic  sections,  we  pass  to  a 
review  of  the  contents  of  the  work  itself. 

2.    The  Analysis, 

Chapter  i  is  a  preface  to  the  rest  of  the  book.  It  tells  us  of 
Nebuchadnezzar's  siege  of  Jerusalem,  of  the  capture  of  Hebrew 
princes  including  Daniel,  of  Daniel's  training  at  Babylon,  and  of  his 
superiority  to  the  magicians  in  interpreting  visions  and  advising  the 
king. 

When  this  chapter  is  compared  with  the  rest-  of  the  book,  the  fol- 
lowing difficulties  appear:  i.  It  is  implied  in  vs.^"'"^'*^  that  three 
years  intervened  before  these  Hebrew  princes  were  brought  to  the 
Babylonian  court ;  and  yet  2^  tells  us  that  Daniel  was  brought  to  the 
court  in  the  second  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  although  Nebuchad- 
nezzar was  already  king  (i^)  when  Daniel  was  taken  captive.-^  2.  We 
are  told  in  vs.-^  that  Daniel  continued  till  the  first  year  of  Cyrus,  but 
in  10^  we  find  him  still  active  in  the  third  year  of  Cyrus.  The  author 
did  not  make  the  statement  in  i-^  on  this  point  as  large  as  he  might. 

It  should  be  noted  in  passing  that  we  know  from  no  other  source 
of  a  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar  in  Jehoiakim's  third 
year,  and  that  this  date  for  such  a  siege  is  in  all  probabihty  a  year  at 
least  earlier  than  the  beginning  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  reign.-^ 

The  second  chapter  recounts  Nebuchadnezzar's  dream  of  the  great 
composite  image,  interpreted  by  Daniel  to  represent  successive  king- 
doms, of  which  Nebuchadnezzar's  was  the  most  glorious,  and  the  last 
of  which  should  be  destroyed  by  the  Messianic  kingdom.  Daniel 
was  then  made  ruler  of  the  province  of  Babylon,  while  his  friends, 
Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abed-nego,  were,  at  his  request,  given 
offices  in  his  province. 

2-  Various  expedients  have  been  proposed  to  harmonize  these  statements. 
Rashi  explains  the  '  second  year '  to  mean  the  second  year  after  the  destruction  of 
the  temple.  Hengstenberg,  Ilavernick,  and  Zockler  suppose  that  in  i^  Nebu- 
chadnezzar is  reigning  conjointly  with  his  father,  Nabopolassar,  and  that  2^  refers 
to  the  second  year  of  his  independent  reign.  Ewald,  Lenormant,  and  Kamp- 
hausen  emend  the  text  so  as  to  make  it  the  twelfth  (n"lCU  Q'i?^')  year.  These 
methods  are  all  violent. 

28  Cf.  Jer.  25I.  Jehoiakim  probably  began  to  reign  in  609  or  608  B.C.,  and 
Nebuchadnezzar  in  604. 


barton:    the   composition    of  the    book   of   DANIEL.  67 

As  to  the  exegesis  of  this  chapter,  it  plainly  represents  the  history 
of  the  successive  empires  down  to  the  Ptolemaic  and  Seleucid  king- 
doms. It  then  represents  the  conquest  of  these  kingdoms  by  the 
Jewish  people,  symbolized  under  the  figure  of  the  stone  cut  out  of 
the  mountain.  It  is  expected  by  the  author  that  the  Jewish  kingdom 
will  subjugate  the  world. 

It  must  be  admitted  that,  although  the  exegesis  of  the  chapter 
leads  us  to  the  Greek  period,  it  does  not  clearly  indicate  the  time  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes.  There  is  nothing  in  it  inconsistent  with  that 
reign,  and  it  is  difificult  to  think  of  any  other  which  would  form  so 
probable  a  background  for  it ;  but  the  picture  is  indicated  with  such 
a  dim  oudine  that  if  this  chapter  stood  alone  we  could  not  insist 
upon  the  Maccabsean  date.  One  is  tempted  to  think  that  this  chap- 
ter formed  an  independent  narrative,  written  when  the  lines  of  battle 
were  just  beginning  to  be  drawn  between  Antiochus  and  the  Jews, 
and  before  the  issue  became  so  sharply  defined.  This  would  account 
for  the  more  general  character  of  the  vision. 

As  to  the  form  of  the  chapter,  it  should  be  observed  that  it  is  not, 
strictly  speaking,  correct  to  contrast  this  with  ch.  7-12,  and  count 
this  as  narrative  and  those  as  apocalyptic  in  form  ;  for  this  chapter 
contains  an  apocalyptic  vision,  and  the  whole  point  of  the  chapter 
centres  in  the  Apocalypse.-*  This  fact  weakens  considerably  the 
force  of  the  contrast  which  has  often  been  made  between  the  first 
and  the  second  half  of  Daniel. 

It  should  be  noted  that  in  vs.^^  the  friends  of  Daniel  are  called 
Hananiah,  Mishael,  and  Azariah,  while  in  vs.'*^  they  are  Shadrach, 
Meshach,  and  Abed-nego.  Could  it  be  shown  that  ch.  2  and  3  were 
originally  separate  and  independent  compositions,  to  which  ch.  i 
had  been  prefixed  after  their  union,  the  explanation  of  this  fi\ct 
would  then  be  that  Hananiah,  Mishael,  and  Azariah  were  the  names 
of  Daniel's  companions  known  to  the  author  of  ch.  2,  and  that  vs.''^  is 
an  editorial  device  to  harmonize  it  with  ch.  3,  a  device  which  was 
anticipated  in  his  preface  (i"'^).  This  leads  us,  however,  to  some 
other  considerations  to  be  taken  up  in  connection  with  ch  3. 

The  third  chapter  (Aram,  vs.^"*^)  narrates  how  Shadrach,  Meshach, 
and  Abed-nego  were  cast  alive  into  a  furnace  of  burning  fire  for  refus- 
ing to  worship  the  great  image  set  up  by  Nebuchadnezzar.  Their 
miraculous  deUverance  was  followed  by  a  decree  that  no  one  should 
speak  against  their  God,  and  they  were  promoted  in  the  province  of 
Babylon. 

2*  Cf.  Bevan  in  loco. 


68  JOURNAL   OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE. 

The  first  thing  which  impresses  one  here  is  the  absence  of  Daniel. 
Why  does  he  not  share  the  fidelity  and  fortunes  of  his  brethren  ?  In 
a  book  devoted  to  his  life  and  exploits  it  seems  strange  indeed 
that  he  should  be  excluded  from  one  of  the  principal  episodes.  Be- 
van  (pp.  78,  79)  explains  the  discrepancy  as  follows:  "The  reason 
seems  to  be  that  he  [Daniel]  could  not  be  introduced  without  mar- 
ring the  effect.  To  represent  him  as  being  cast  with  his  friends  into 
the  furnace  would  have  involved  too  gross  and  startling  an  inconsis- 
tency, after  the  scene  of  ch.  2.  On  the  other  hand,  if  Daniel  had 
intervened  to  save  his  friends,  there  would  have  been  no  opportunity 
for  the  display  of  divine  power,  preserving  them  unhurt  amidst  the 
flames  of  the  furnace.  On  these  grounds  the  non-mention  of  Daniel 
is  perfectly  natural." 

But  are  these  reasons  satisfactory?  Does  not  the  whole  history  of 
Oriental  monarchy  teach  us  that  nothing  is  more  natural  than  for  a 
monarch's  favorites  of  one  day  to  be  in  danger  of  their  lives  the  next  ? 
Has  Bevan  forgotten  Haroun  ar-Rashid  and  the  Barmecides,  not  to 
mention  many  others?  Under  the  circumstances  it  seems  a  much 
more  "gross  and  startling  inconsistency"  that  Daniel  should  seem  to 
conform  to  heathen  worship,  than  that  an  Oriental  despot  should  be 
fickle. 

This  chapter  is  distinguished  from  the  rest  of  the  book  by  this 
unaccountable  absence  of  Daniel.  A  closer  study  of  the  chapter 
reveals  a  polemic  against  idol  worship  complete  in  itself —  the  royal 
threat,  its  execution,  the  divine  interposition,  and  the  vindication  of 
Israel's  God,  form  a  well-rounded  whole.  There  can  be  little  doubt 
that  it  originated  in  the  year  168  B.C.,  when  Antiochus  was  making 
the  effort  to  force  the  Jews  to  worship  idols.^^ 

One  is  strongly  tempted  to  believe  that  this  little  story  originated 
independently  of  the  Daniel  stories,  and  formed  part  of  a  somewhat 
different  cycle  of  tradition. 

The  evidence  of  the  language  of  the  chapter  on  this  point,  though 
not  actually  opposed,  is,  it  must  be  confessed,  not  distinctly  in  favor 
of  the  view  just  expressed.  All  the  Greek  words  which  occur  in 
Daniel  —  KtOapts,  iJ/aXrypiov,  and  (TVfx<^uivia  —  occur  in  ch.  3  and  no- 
where else.  Of  the  sixteen*''  Persian  words  in  Daniel,  seven,  or  nearly 
one-half,  occur  inch.  3  —  a  far  larger  proportion  than  any  other 
chapter  can  claim  —  while  three  of  these  —  ^3*11S,  *1Dm  and  73*10  ^ 

25  Cf.  I  Mace.  i-»-^. 

2^  Driver,  Introduction,  p.  469  n.,  considers  fifteen  Persian  words  as  certain. 

2"  Driver,  ibid.,  regards  bS'lD  as  most  likely  Persian,  but  as  uncertain.    I  have 


BARTON  :    THE    COMPOSITION    OF   THE    BOOK   OF   DANIEL.  69 

—  are  found  nowhere  else  in  Daniel.  These  facts  would  seem  at  first 
sight  to  support  the  theory  of  separate  authorship,  but  some  abate- 
ments have  to  be  made  for  the  fact  that  they  are  a7ra|^  Aeyo/xeva 
(and  it  may  be  only  chance  that  they  are  not  used  elsewhere),  and  for 
the  further  fact  that  we  are  dealing  not  with  the  original  but  with  a 
translation. 

Another  fact,  however,  which  seems  to  tell  squarely  against  our 
theory  must  be  noted.  The  phrase  "people,  nations,  and  tongues," 
as  was  pointed  out  above,  occurs  thrice  in  this  narrative  and  is  found 
four  times  outside  of  it.  A  mark  of  style  like  this  would  seem  to 
point  to  one  author  for  the  sections  in  which  it  occurs.  These  con- 
flicting indications  leave  our  judgment  of  ch.  3  in  suspense. 

The  fourth  chapter  (Aram,  f^  —  4''*)  contains  Nebuchadnezzar's 
dream  of  the  tree  cut  down  by  divine  decree,  and  Daniel's  interpre- 
tation of  the  dream.-^  As  to  literary  form,  the  chapter  professes  to  be 
a  proclamation  of  Nebuchadnezzar ;  but  the  author  forgets  himself 
once  (vs.^"^'',  English  ^*-*'')  and  lapses  into  the  third  person. 

This  chapter,  though  an  episode  tolerably  complete  in  itself,  bears 
the  stamp  of  the  same  literary  mint  as  ch.  2.  The  general  features 
of  the  account  are  the  same.  It  is  a  narrative  containing  an  apoca- 
lypse. Nebuchadnezzar,  as  in  ch.  2,  had  a  dream.  As  in  ch.  2,  he 
appeals  in  vain  to  the  magicians  and  soothsayers  for  an  interpretation. 
As  in  ch.  2,  the  interpretation  is  finally  accomplished  by  Daniel.  It 
is  true  that  the  king  calls  upon  the  magicians  first,  in  a  way  rather 
surprising  after  Daniel's  brilliant  exploit  in  ch.  2,  but  that  may  be 
only  the  author's  way  of  keeping  before  the  mind  of  the  reader  the 
superiority  of  Israel's  God  to  all  forms  of  witchcraft.  This  chapter 
differs  from  ch.  2  in  containing  no  Messianic  conception  :  it  simply 
tells  how  a  foreign  king  was  taught  the  supremacy  of  the  God  of 
Israel.  The  utter  powerlessness  of  the  mightiest  monarch  in  the 
presence  of  the  Almighty  is  here  so  pictured  as  to  inspire  the  strug- 
gling Israelitish  patriots  with  hope  and  confidence.  History  might 
repeat  itself  and  another  king  be  similarly  humbled. 

The  chapter  is  entirely  consonant  with  the  times  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes.  The  general  literary  conception  and  execution  link  it 
in  authorship  to  ch.  2. 

included  it.     There  is  one  other  which  he  considers  as  possibly  Persian  ("^STJ), 
but  it  may  have  arisen  from  dittography. 

2^  For  a  tradition  concerning  Nebuchadnezzar,  which,  as  Bevan  (in  loco  87, 
88)  observes,  has  probably  some  points  in  common  with  our  chapter,  see  Euse- 
bius,  Praep.  Evang.  ix.  41  (Abydenus). 


70  JOURNAL   OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE. 

The  fifth  chapter  describes  Belshazzar's  feast ;  the  hand-writing  on 
the  wall,  which  has  been  held  to  consist  simply  of  five  Babylonian 
words,^  Daniel's  interpretation,  and  the  destruction  of  Belshazzar's 
kingdom. 

This  chapter  presupposes  ch.  4,  as  vs.  17-21  contain  an  extended 
reference  to  that  narrative.  It  is  in  a  general  way  a  story  of  the 
same  pattern  as  ch.  2  and  4  :  a  king  is  in  distress  for  lack  of  an  inter- 
pretation of  an  ominous  sign,  the  wise  men  of  his  kingdom  fail  him, 
Daniel  gives  him  the  longed-for  interpretation,  and  as  in  ch.  4  the 
interpretation  is  fulfilled. 

The  pecuhar  phrases  noted  above  and  the  facts  just  pointed  out 
identify  the  chapter  with  the  writings  of  the  author  of  ch.  2  and  4. 
Chapter  2  was,  we  may  suppose,  written  when  the  onslaught  of  Anti- 
ochus  was  first  made  ;  ch.  4,  when  some  lull  in  the  contest  gave  Israel 
hope  that  the  heart  of  the  persecutor  might  be  humbled  ;  ch.  5,  when 
the  contest  was  renewed  again,  and  it  was  evidently  a  fight  to  the 
death. 

Chapter  6  transports  us  to  the  reign  of  Darius  the  Mede,  and  re- 
counts the  well-known  story  of  Daniel  and  the  lions'  den.  This  chap- 
ter presents  some  striking  differences  from  ch.  2,  4,  and  5.  Though  a 
new  king  is  introduced,  Daniel  is  not,  as  in  previous  chapters,  formally 
presented  to  him  ;  it  is  simply  taken  for  granted  that  Daniel  is  trusted 
by  him.  There  is  lacking,  too,  the  general  literary  method  of  ch.  2, 
4,  and  5.  There  is  no  dream  or  puzzle  to  interpret,  by  which  the 
superiority  of  the  God  of  Israel  may  be  demonstrated.  It  is  a  plain, 
straightforward  narrative,  containing  no  apocalypse.  With  one  excep- 
tion the  characteristic  phrases  of  those  chapters  are  lacking.'^"  Dan- 
iel is  not  called  Belteshazzar,  and  the  chapter  is  designed  to  encourage 
the  persecuted  to  endurance,  rather  than  to  predict  as  in  2,  4,  and  5 
the  overthrow  of  the  persecutor.  The  setting  of  the  story  is  Median, 
and  not  as  in  those  chapters  Babylonian.  There  is  reason  to  guess 
that  the  author  ot  those  chapters  was  not  the  author  of  this. 

29  Cf.  Clermont-Ganneau  in  Jourtial  Asiatique,  Serie  VIII.  i.  36  ff. ;  also  He- 
braica  iii.  87-102;  Noldeke  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  Assyriologie  i.  414 ff.;  Haupt  in 
Johns  Hopkins  University  Circular,  July,  1887,  p.  104;  Hoffmann  in  Zeitschrift 
filr  Assyriologie  \\.  \i,-i,%;  and  Prince,  PA  OS.  1892,  p.  clxxxii.  ff.  For  opposing 
views  cf.  Behrmann,  Das  Bitrh  Daniel,  36,  37,  and  Peters  in  this  Journal,  xv. 
Ii4ff. 

'^^  This  exception  is  the  phrase  "  peoples,  nations,  and  tongues  "  (6^^).  The 
LXX  reads  rots  edve<Ti  Kal  yKujffan  Kal  x'^P"-'-^-  This  variation  from  the  Aramaic 
•at  this  point  indicates  the  presence  of  some  uncertainty  as  to  the  reading,  and 
leads  me  to  suspect  that  the  words  "  nations  and  tongues  "  are  a  gloss. 


BARTON  :    THE    COMPOSITION   OF   THE    BOOK   OF   DANIEL.  7 1 

Chapter  6  has,  however,  some  features  m  common  with  ch.  3'"^. 
In  that  chapter  IsraeUtes  are  cast  into  a  fiery  furnace  for  refusing  to 
worship  an  idol :  here  an  IsraeUte  is  cast  into  a  den  of  Hons  for  pray- 
ing to  God  and  not  to  a  king.  If  we  connect  2^  with  3^"^^,  the  paral- 
lehsm  becomes  still  more  striking.  Daniel  is  there  ruler  of  a  province 
over  three  deputy-rulers ;  here,  the  ruler  of  an  empire,  like  Joseph, 
next  to  the  king  in  power,  under  whom  are  three  presidents,  who  are 
in  turn  over  numerous  satraps.'^^  In  both  strict  adherence  to  the  Jew- 
ish religion  brings  the  heroes  of  the  story  into  mortal  danger  from 
which  they  are  miraculously  delivered.  The  purpose  of  the  two  narra- 
tives is  the  same,  to  encourage  resistance  to  idol  worship. 

The  two  chapters  manifest  also  some  striking  differences.  In  ch.  3 
the  negative  virtue  of  abstinence  from  idolatry  is  commended  ;  in 
ch.  6  the  positive  virtue  of  the  maintenance  of  the  Jewish  religion, 
and  especially  of  private  prayer,  is  encouraged.  In  the  former  it  is 
hinted  that  Antiochus  is  alone  responsible  for  Israel's  sufferings ;  in 
the  latter  it  is  hinted  that  it  is  the  fault  of  crafty  advisers.  In  ch.  3 
the  setting  is  Babylonian,  and  the  conduct  of  Nebuchadnezzar  is  in  the 
main  consistent  with  actual  life;  in  ch.  6  the  setting  is  Median  (a 
mistake  for  Persian),  and  the  picture  of  Darius  helplessly  coerced  by 
his  nobles  one  day  and  royally  executing  them  the  next  may  indeed 
find  its  parallels  in  the  history  of  weak  Oriental  despots,  but  savors 
rather  of  the  work  of  an  author  untouched  by  the  ways  of  courts. 

I  regard  the  two  chapters,  therefore,  as  independent  parallel  tradi- 
tions, rather  than  as  connected  stories.  The  same  germ  is  found 
in  both  —  the  story  of  mortal  danger  induced  by  the  interdiction  of 
Israel's  religion,  from  which  deUverance  is  effected  by  miracle.  This 
germ  developed  differently  in  the  different  traditions  until,  when  it 
assumed  Uterary  form  under  the  impetus  of  the  persecution  of 
Antiochus,  in  one  centre  it  was  connected  with  Nebuchadnezzar  and 
a  fiery  furnace,  with  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abed-nego  for  heroes  ;  ^^ 
and  in  another  centre  in  the  hands  of  a  different  writer  it  was  con- 
nected with  Darius  the  Mede  and  a  lions'  den,  with  Daniel  as  the 
hero.     That  such  freedom  in  moulding  the  details  of  a  tradition  was 

31  We  saw  above  that  2*^  might  with  plausibility  be  regarded  as  an  editorial 
note  linking  ch.  2  to  a  narrative  of  different  authorship.  Is  it  too  much  to  suppose 
that  the  parallelism  to  ch.  6  which  such  editorial  note  created  escaped  the  editor? 
May  the  form  of  his  note  not  have  been  suggested  to  him  by  ch.  6? 

3-  Dr.  Peters  (Journal,  xv.  109  ff.)  suggests  that  we  have  here  a  legendary  ac- 
count of  Nebuchadnezzar's  treatment  of  Ahah  and  Zedekiah  (Jer.  29--),  or  some 
of  their  compeers.     Bevan  anticipated  him  in  this.     See  Bevan,  oJ>.  cit.  p.  78. 


72  JOURNAL   OF    BIBLICAL   LITERATURE. 

possible  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  in  the  story  of  "  Bel  and 
the  Dragon"  appended  to  Daniel  in  the  LXX,  the  episode  of  the 
lions'  den  is  transferred  to  the  reign  of  Cyrus  and  made  an  important 
circumstance  in  quite  a  different  series  of  events.  This  freedom  was 
probably  exercised  after  the  form  of  the  story  in  ch.  6  was  well 
known. 

Viewed  in  the  light  of  the  above  observations,  ch.  6  has  no  neces- 
sary literary  connection  with  the  preceding  material  except  through 
the  clause  "  And  Darius  the  Mede  received  the  kingdom,"  etc., 
which  might  well  be  regarded  as  an  editorial  note. 

The  seventh  chapter  takes  us  back  to  the  reign  of  Belshazzar  and 
recounts  a  dream  of  Daniel.  It  differs  from  the  preceding  portions 
of  the  book  in  that  after  the  first  verse  Daniel  speaks  in  the  first 
person,  as  he  does  in  the  subsequent  chapters.  This  is  a  literary  dif- 
ference which  has  proven  to  previous  critics  from  Spinoza  down  an 
attractive  but  fruitless  clue.  It  is  really  a  surface  difference.  As 
our  guides  to  authorship,  we  must  look  to  the  deeper  elements  of 
conception  and  kind  of  material  employed. 

The  chapter  makes  Daniel  tell  us  of  a  dream  in  which  he  sees 
beasts  of  composite  character,''^  the  last  of  which  ravages  the  world 
till  the  "  Ancient  of  Days  "  sits  in  judgment  and  the  beast  is  slain. 

In  the  heavens  appears  the  form  of  a  man''*  to  whom  the  kingdom 
of  the  world  is  given.  It  is  explained  to  Daniel  that  the  beasts 
represent  kingdoms,  and  the  horns  kings,  that  a  certain  horn  is  to 
prevail  for  3^  times,  —  generally  interpreted  as  years,  —  that  God 
would  then  intervene  and  give  the  kingdom  to  his  saints. 

Recent  commentators  agree  that  the  fourth  beast  is  the  Greek 
empire,  that  the  ten  horns  are  ten  Syrian  kings,  and  that  the  little 
horn  is  Antiochus. 

Chapter  7,  like  ch.  2,  4,  and  5,  takes  us  to  a  Babylonian  environ- 
ment, and  as  in  ch.  2  and  4  employs  the  device  of  an  apocalyptic 
dream.  Again,  like  those  chapters,  it  represents  through  weird  im- 
agery the  unfolding  of  future  events.  Gunkel  has  shown  that  this 
imagery  is  based  on  such  material  as  is  found  in  the  Babylonian 
Cosmogonic   Epic.'"     The   idea  underlying   this  chapter  and  ch.  2 

•'^  Compare  the  composite  creatures  in  the  Babylonian  Creation  Epic,  Col. 
i.  1 19-124.  See  Delitzsch's  IVel/schop/uiigsgpos,  ox  Zxmmem^s  Beilagen  \.o  G\xx\- 
kel's  Schopfimg  itnd  Chaos,  pp.  403,  404. 

3i  Cf.  Wellhausen's  hraditische  und  jiidische  Geschichle,  p.  312  n.,  and  Bevan, 
op.  cit.  p.  11 8. 

35  Sch'dpfuiig  und  Chaos  in  Urzeit  und  Endzeit,  Gottingen,  1S95,  PP-  235-398. 


BARTON  :    THE    COMPOSITION    OF   THE    BOOK    OF    DANIEL.  73 


IS 


the  same.  In  both  we  read  of  four  world  empires,  in  both 
the  fourth  empire  is  dwelt  upon  at  much  greater  length  than  the 
first  three,  in  both  the  fourth  empire  is  overcome  by  divine  inter- 
position in  order  that  an  everlasting  kingdom  may  be  set  up.  The 
two  chapters  differ  in  that  ch.  2  dwells  on  the  divisions  of  the 
last  empire,  while  ch.  7  does  not;  in  ch.  2  the  four  empires  repre- 
sented by  the  image  are  all  destroyed,  while  in  ch.  7  three  of  them 
are  permitted  to  live  on  though  deprived  of  their  dominion.  These 
differences  are,  however,  easily  accounted  for  by  the  differences  of 
the  traditional  imagery  employed  in  the  two  chapters.  The  author 
no  doubt  applied  the  imagery  to  such  features  of  the  history  known 
to  him  as  appeared  to  be  analogous  to  the  symbols  in  hand. 

The  similarities  already  mentioned  would  lead  us  to  believe  that  it 
is  the  work  of  the  same  hand  which  produced  ch.  2,  4,  and  5. 

Chapter  8  contains  Daniel's  vision  of  the  ram  who  is  overcome  by 
the  he-goat  with  the  notable  horn  between  his  eyes.  The  time  of 
the  vision  is  the  reign  of  Belshazzar,  and  the  place  the  river  Ulai  in 
Susa.  It  is  explained  to  Daniel  by  Gabriel  that  this  vision  means 
that  the  Medo-Persian  empire  is  to  be  overcome  by  Alexander,  that 
his  empire  is  to  break  up  into  four,  that  from  one  of  these  a  king  is 
to  come  forth  who  will  overthrow  the  worship  of  several  gods,  that 
he  will  endeavor  to  overthrow  the  worship  of  the  supreme  God 
Yahwe,  and  will  cause  His  burnt  offering  to  cease  and  profane  His 
sanctuary.'^" 

The  explanation  of  the  2300  evenings  and  mornings  (vs.")  is  not 
so  clear.  Commentators  seem  to  be  pretty  well  agreed  that  they  are 
equal  to  1150  days.^'  The  most  probable  explanation  of  this  is  that 
it  is  the  author's  estimate  of  3I  times.  Cornill  has  shown  that  on 
the  basis  of  the  calendar  then  in  use  among  the  Jews  11 50  days  falls 
short  of  3I  of  the  shortest  years  by  more  than  a  hundred  days ;  '^ 
but  the  author  may  have  regarded  the  half  as  meaning  simply  a 
fraction  of  a  year. 

Interesting  in  connection  with  the  Babylonian  material  is  the  word  i"lp, '  war,'  hke 
the  Bab.-Assyr.  kardbti.  It  occurs  nowhere  else  in  Biblical  Aramaic,  though 
found  a  number  of  times  in  Hebrew  (once  in  2  Sam.  17I1  [J]  and  several  times 
in  exilic  and  post-exilic  passages)  and  in  the  Targums. 

^  So  Professor  Moore  in  this  Jourxai,,  xv.  193  ff.  It  is  a  view  which 
commends  itself. 

3"  The  Hebrew  is  open  to  this  construction.  It  reads  t'S^K  "lp2  3"117  11) 
mJ^to  rr'ri  The  LXX,  however,  understood  2300  days:  "Ews  ecrv^pas  kuI  irpwi- 
ij/xipai  8iffxl-\iai  Kai  TpiaK6(nai.     The  reading  of  Theodotion  is  the  same. 

38  Die  siebzig  Jahrwochen  Daniels,  p.  22. 


74  JOURNAL   OF    BIBLICAL   LITERATURE. 

The  vision  of  ch.  8,  like  those  of  2,  4,  and  7,  is  embodied  in  weird 
imagery  unhke  anything  in  Daniel  outside  of  these  chapters.  The 
idea  is  similar  to  those  chapters,  though  here  the  attention  is  centred 
upon  the  Greek  kingdom.  The  Medo-Persian  empire  is  mentioned 
because  Alexander  overcomes  it.  By  implication  (the  scene  of  the 
vision  is  the  Babylonian  empire)  we  may,  as  in  ch.  2  and  7,  find  four 
empires  ;  as  in  those  chapters,  a  great  persecution  arises  and  a  prom- 
ise of  deliverance  is  given.  This  chapter  differs  from  those  in  that 
there  is  here  a  more  detailed  treatment  of  the  persecutor  and  his 
work,  but  no  Messianic  representation.  It  is  intimated  that  the  per- 
secutor will  be  '  broken,'  but  no  hint  is  given  of  the  instrumentality 
by  which  this  will  be  achieved. 

The  employment  of  grotesque  imagery,  the  Babylonian  setting, 
and  the  general  correspondences  just  mentioned  indicate  that  this 
vision  is  the  work  of  the  author  of  ch.  2,  4,  5,  and  7.  It  would  seem 
to  have  been  written  somewhat  later  than  ch.  7  to  give  encourage- 
ment to  the  struggling  Jews  in  a  little  different  way,  and  to  give  the 
writer's  explanation  of  3^  times. 

The  ninth  chapter  presents  in  vs.^'-  what  might  well  have  been 
originally  the  title  of  an  independent  work,  beginning  with  a  very 
formal  dating  in  the  first  year  of  Darius,  the  son  of  Ahasuerus,  of  the 
seed  of  the  Medes.  The  chapter  then  proceeds  to  tell  us  of  Daniel's 
vision,  in  which  Jeremiah's  70  years  are  interpreted  as  70  weeks  of 
years,  and  the  events  of  the  last  half  week  are  made  known  to  him 
in  some  detail. 

Recent  commentators  are  pretty  well  agreed  that  this  last  half 
week  corresponds  to  the  profanation  of  the  temple  by  Antiochus. 
This  would  make  168  B.C.  the  middle  of  the  last  week.  But  if  we 
count  from  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  586  B.C.,  the  intervening 
period  is  but  4i8|^  years,  and  not  486. V,  as  the  author  evidently  sup- 
posed. Graf,  Noldeke,  Schiirer,  Cornill,  and  Bevan  are  of  the  opin- 
ion that  the  author,  who  lived  among  a  people  very  imperfectly 
acquainted  with  chronology,  especially  of  times  long  passed,  followed 
an  incorrect  computation.  Schiirer''''  points  out  that  even  Josephus 
may  be  caught  tripping  in  a  similar  way.  Such  an  explanation  seems 
altogether  probable.  The  correspondence  of  the  half  week  with  the 
3-^  times  is  too  striking  to  lead  us  to  suppose  that  the  chapter 
originated  in  any  other  crisis  than  that  which  called  forth  ch.  7. 

^^  History  of  the  Jewish  People  in  the  I'iine  of  Jesus  Christ,  Div.  ii.  Vol.  iii. 
PP-  53.  54- 


BARTON  :    THE    COMPOSITION    OF   THE    BOOK    OF    DANIEL.  75 

It  should  be  noted  that  this  chapter,  Hke  ch.  6,  lays  especial  em- 
phasis on  prayer.  It  is  not  so  much  a  vision  as  an  answer  to  prayer. 
These  chapters  agree  in  dating  their  events  in  the  reign  of  Darius 
the  Mede,  and  in  laying  an  emphasis  on  prayer  unique  in  the  book 
of  Daniel.  Chapter  lo  represents  Daniel  as  fasting  and  mourning; 
these  chapters  picture  him  as  faithful  in  prayer,  ch.  9  giving  his  prayer 
in  detail. 

This  ninth  chapter,  too,  is  dependent  upon  other  parts  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  a  way  without  parallel  elsewhere  in  Daniel.  V/e  have 
already  noted  the  fact  that  the  kernel  of  the  chapter  is  taken  from 
Jeremiah ;  we  have  now  to  note  the  dependence  of  the  prayer  in 
vs.''"^^  on  Nehemiah  i''**'  and  9"*'.  Von  Gall *^  goes  so  far  as  to  regard 
these  verses  alone,  out  of  all  the  book,  as  a  later  insertion,  like  Aza- 
rias's  prayer  and  the  song  of  the  three  children  in  ch.  3  of  the  Greek 
version  of  Daniel.  That  is,  however,  not  necessary.  It  is  enough  to 
suppose  that  such  prayers  as  those  of  Nehemiah  were  the  natural 
model  for  an  author  so  steeped  in  the  Scriptures  as  this  one.^^ 

Critics  who  argue  for  the  unity  of  Daniel  remark  on  the  author's 
tendency  to  heap  up  synonyms,*-  examples  of  which  occur  in  the 
enumeration  of  musical  instruments  in  ch.  3,  and  in  such  phrases  as 
"  peoples,  nations,  and  tongues  "  already  referred  to.  This  prayer  in 
ch.  9  might  at  first  sight  seem  to  be  an  excellent  example  of  the 
same  tendency ;  but  a  closer  examination  reveals  the  fact  that  it 
makes  no  more  use  of  synonymous  expressions  than  the  parallel 
passages  in  Nehemiah  on  which  it  is  modelled,  and  the  likeness  in 
this  respect  to  the  Aramaic  sections  of  the  book  may  be  purely  acci- 
dental. The  formal  title  at  the  beginning  of  this  chapter,  its  Median 
setting,  and  its  unique  dependence  upon  and  use  of  other  parts  of 
the  Old  Testament,  lead  me  to  believe  that  it  originally  came  from 
an  author  different  from  the  author  of  any  other  chapter  except  6-"-'. 
It  has  in  common  with  that  chapter  the  Median  setting,  the  promi- 
nence given  to  prayer,  and  marked  dependence  on  other  parts  of  the 
Old  Testament.*^  I  therefore  regard  the  two  chapters  as  successive 
pamphlets  by  the  same  author.  Of  the  two,  ch.  9  was  probably 
issued  first,  since  it  has  the  more  formal  title.  The  author  when  he 
issued  6-'-^  considered  Darius  sufficiently  well  known. 

*"  Die  Einheitlichkeit  des  Buches  Daniel,  Giessen,  1895,  P-  I23ff. 
*i  Vs.'*  is  dependent  on  Ex.  20'^  and  Deut.  7^.     Vs.  ^2- 13-  u  are  also  full  of  refer- 
ences to  the  Pentateuchal  law. 

*2  Cf.  Kamphausen's  Daniel  in  Hebrew,  p.  30. 
*3  Cf.  6"  with  I  Kings  8*«,  and  Ps.  55". 


76  JOURNAL    OF    BIBLICAL    LITERATURE. 

In  9-^  the  words  "  whom  I  had  seen  in  the  vision  at  the  beginning  " 
I  regard  as  an  editor's  note  to  harmonize  the  mention  of  Gabriel 
with  8^«. 

The  last  three  chapters  of  the  book  (10-12*)  form  a  continuous 
vision.  Chapter  10  is  its  introduction.  Daniel,  fasting  by  the  banks 
of  the  Tigris  in  the  third  year  of  Cyrus,  is  visited  by  a  heavenly 
messenger,  who  unfolds  to  him  the  history  of  the  future.  The  sub- 
sequent history  of  Persia  is  passed  over  in  a  sentence.  The  author 
evidently  knew  of  but  four  Persian  kings,  probably  those  who  happen 
to  be  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament.  He  knows  the  Syro- 
Egyptian  history  quite  thoroughly,  and  in  ch.  11  gives  this  in  great 
detail.  Having  stated  in  1 1"'  the  general  relations  between  the  two 
kingdoms,  he  describes  in  vs.*^  the  relations  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus 
and  his  daughter  Bernice  with  Antiochus  Theos  ;  •  in  vs.'^"''  the  times  of 
Ptolemy  Euergetes  and  Seleucus  CaUinicus  ;  in  vs.'""^^  the  reign  of 
Antiochus  the  Great ;  in  v.^  the  reign  of  Seleucus  Philopator  the  son 
of  Antiochus ;  in  vs.-^'-*  the  rise  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes ;  in  vs.^'^ 
the  war  of  Epiphanes  with  Ptolemy  Philometor ;  in  vs.^^^  how 
Antiochus  turned  his  attention  to  Jerusalem  and  destroyed  the 
temple ;  in  vs.^-'^'  the  sufferings  of  the  Jews ;  in  vs.^^^^  the  impiety 
of  Epiphanes ;  and  in  ^"^  the  author  describes  what  he  expects 
the  tyrant  yet  to  do  before  the  grand  consummation  of  ch.  12.  In 
that  chapter  (vs.^'*)  he  tells  how  Michael  shall  appear,  many  dead 
shall  be  raised,  and  the  long  expected  time  of  blessedness  begin. 
There  are  two  postscripts  which  will  be  considered  later. 

The  scene  of  this  apocalypse  is  laid  in  the  reign  of  Cyrus,  and 
the  idea  of  angels  as  guardians  of  nations  is  no  doubt  borrowed  from 
Persian  angelology.**  The  style  of  ch.  11,  which  treats  of  Syro- 
Egyptian  history  in  such  detail,  differs  from  anything  else  in  Daniel. 
It  is  obscure,  difficult,  and  frequently  un-Hebraic.  Rabbi  Szold^ 
regards  it  as  a  poem,  but  to  me  both  the  parallelism  and  the  poetic 
thought  seem  to  be  lacking.  I  rather  suspect  that  the  author's  style 
was  here  influenced  by  some  historical  notes  of  which  he  made 
use,  and  which  were  already  in  a  written  form,  perhaps  in  some 
language  other  than  Hebrew.  At  all  events,  the  author  of  this 
apocalypse  has  a  knowledge  of  the  history  of  the  Greek  kingdoms 
unique  in  the  book  of  Daniel.  This  with  the  Persian  elements 
mentioned  above  leads  me  to  regard  him  as  different  from  the  author 

**  Cf.  the  idea  that  each  nation  has  its  guardian  angel,  ch.  lo^o-Si  and  12^. 
*^  The  Eleventh  Chapter  0/  the  Book  of  Daniel,  in  the  Alex.  Kohut  Memorial 
volume. 


BARTON  :    THE   COMPOSITION    OF   THE    BOOK   OF   DANIEL.  7  7 

of  any  other  section  of  the  book.  In  ch.  ii'  the  LXX  is  probably- 
right  in  reading  "Cyrus"  instead  of  "Darius  the  Mede."  ^^  The 
angel  speaking  in  the  third  year  of  Cyrus  refers  back  to  the  struggle 
which  he  had  in  Cyrus's  first  year  when  the  heavenly  powers  opposed 
the  movement  which  favored  the  Jews. 

An  editorial  note  I  find  in  lo^  in  the  words  "  whose  name  was  called 
Belteshazzar."  The  phrase  occurs  so  often  in  the  Nebuchadnezzar- 
Belshazzar  sections,  that  even  in  such  hasty  editing  as  the  book 
received,  it  seems  to  have  struck  the  editor  that  it  should  be  inserted 
here.  Another  editorial  note  is  to  be  seen  in  vs.'-*  in  the  words 
1  ^^a-br  Q'lni     The  sentence  probably  read  n:r"lS  ^32  ^n^^n  ^JST 

-T-  t:-  ,  I  J  t:t-t--t--:- 

The  n21I"lS!  ''^Sl  ''3D  7^  which  now  stands  in  the  text  is  awkwardly 
tautological.     It  was  no  doubt  introduced  to  harmonize  with  8^^. 

The  end  of  the  vision  (12'')  is  marked  by  a  command  similar  to 
that  at  the  end  of  ch.  8,  to  "shut  up  the  words  and  seal  the  book." 
This,  no  doubt,  originally  formed  the  end  of  this  Cyrus  apocalypse. 

In  vs.^"^"'  ^^  a  scene  is  introduced  which  is  borrowed  from  ch.  7  and 
8  and  is  probably  editorial.  The  device  of  two  figures  standing  by 
the  river,  one  of  whom  asks  the  other  how  long  it  shall  be  to  the 
end  of  these  wonders,  is  based  on  ch.  8'^^^  The  answer,  3!  times, 
is  based  on  ch.  7-^.  Then  the  statement  "  the  words  are  shut  up 
and  sealed"  is  patterned  on  12^  and  8'^,  and  the  statement  which 
follows  (vs.^"-  ^^)  is  designed  to  form  a  fitting  conclusion  to  the  book. 
How  the  book  was,  in  my  judgment,  compiled,  I  will  endeavor  to 
make  clear  below.  These  verses  (^"^"-  ^^)  are,  I  think,  the  compiler's 
own  ending  to  the  book. 

Gunkel'*''  first  suggested  that  vs."  """^  ^-  are  two  glosses  added  by  dif- 
ferent hands  to  explain  the  3^  times  of  vs.^      This  conclusion  had 

*s  The  late  W.  R.  Smith  conjectured  that  '''IQn  ^.V"^"^  was  a  part  of  an  inde- 
pendent heading  wrongly  introduced  at  this  point  by  a  scribe.  Bevan  follows 
him.  Behrmann  omits  the  verse  and  the  first  half  of  the  following  one  alto- 
gether. Meinhold  reads  as  I  would  ^^"1137  ^^D^  ^5^3.  Kamphausen,  in 
Daniel  in  Hebrew,  defends  the  Massoretic  text  on  the  ground  that  the 
"  author  sharply  distinguishes  in  time  between  the  overthrow  of  the  Chaldasan 
empire,  coincident  with  the  accession  of  the  so-called  Mede,  Darius,  and  the  favor 
shown  to  the  Jews  some  years  later,  in  the  permission  to  return,  which  was  first 
given  by  Cyrus,"  —  an  exegesis  which  seems  exceedingly  unnatural.  Surely  the 
time  for  such  opposition  as  is  here  spoken  of  was  in  the  first  year  of  Cyrus,  when 
he  was  about  to  publish  his  decree  which  gave  permission  for  the  return.  The 
opposition  to  an  arbitration  treaty,  a  treaty  of  annexation,  or  a  tariff  bill,  is 
exhibited  when  the  act  is  in  process  of  formation.  Does  our  author  attribute  less 
wisdom  to  the  heavenly  powers  ? 

*"  Schopfung  unci  Chaos,  p.  269  n. 


78  JOURNAL   OF    BIBLICAL    LITERATURE. 

forced  itself  upon  me  before  I  noticed  Gunkel's  suggestion.  The 
present  ending  of  the  book  is,  therefore,  an  expansion  by  these  glos- 
sators. 

3.   The  Results. 

The  preceding  discussion  renders  unnecessary  the  task  of  ex- 
plaining why  neither  the  solution  of  Eichhorn  and  Meinhold  nor  that 
of  Bertholdt  is  satisfactory.  They  do  not  meet  the  conditions  which 
we  have  observed  to  exist.  Our  review  of  the  book  reveals  nine  dis- 
tinct and  complete  episodes  after  the  first  chapter.  Seven  of  these 
are  apocalyptic  in  their  nature,  while  two  (^,  6)  are  stories  for  the 
times.  Chapter  i  is  but  an  introduction  to  this  series  of  stories.  It 
is  clear  that  such  a  book  can  have  httle  unity  of  plan. 

Another  fact  which  impresses  even  the  most  cursory  reader  of 
Daniel  is  the  historical  mixture  which  appears  in  it.  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, Belshazzar,  Darius  the  Mede,  Belshazzar,  Darius  the  Mede, 
and  Cyrus  make,  when  narratives  concerning  their  reigns  are  placed 
in  this  order,  as  in  the  book  of  Daniel,  what  at  first  sight  seems  a 
historical  patchwork,  which  is  exceedingly  unnatural  in  an  original 
writer.  Were  a  "  higher  critic  "  guilty  of  arranging  the  parts  of  a 
book  in  such  an  order,  many  would  stoutly  deny  that  it  could  be  the 
right  one.  The  conclusion  which  naturally  suggests  itself  is  that 
these  separate  and  complete  episodes,  concerning  so  many  reigns, 
were  once,  as  Lagarde  suggested,  independent  pamphlets.  Several 
of  them  must,  as  we  have  seen,  be  successive  efibrts  of  the  same 
author,  though  they  cannot  all  be  from  the  same  pen. 

This  impression  is  somewhat  strengthened  when  we  reflect  that  of 
the  important  apocalypses  known,  every  one  is  composite  in  struct- 
ure, unless  Daniel  be  an  exception.  The  composite  character  of 
Enoch  has  been  recognized  since  Liicke  published  his  Einleitiing  in 
die  Offenbanmg  Johannes,  2d  ed.,  in  1852,  and  numerous  scholars  of 
eminence  can  be  quoted  in  favor  of  this  view.^^  Kabisch,'*^  de  Faye,  ^ 
and  Charles'^  have  made  the  composite  character  of  Baruch  quite 
clear.  As  to  Fourth  Esdras,  Kabisch  in  1889^-  made  out  a  strong 
case  for  its  composite  character,  and  now  Charles^  comes  to  his  sup- 

«  See  Charles's  The  Book  of  Enoch,  p.  gff. 

^^ /ahrbiicher  f.  Protest.  Thcol.,  1 89 1,  pp.  66-IO7. 

^  Les  Apocalypses  juives.,  1892. 

"  The  Apocalypse  of  Baruch,  1896. 

^  Das  vierte  Buch  Ezra.,  Gottingen,  1 889. 

W  Apoc.  of  Baruch,  p.  Ixvii. 


BARTON  :    THE   COMPOSITION    OF   THE    BOOK    OF   DANIEL.  79 

port.  Whea  we  come  to  the  Apocalypse  of  John  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment the  case  is  more  compUcated.  Several  different  schools  of  criti- 
cism have  in  the  past  fifteen  years  come  to  the  fore,  and  while  they 
differ  in  many  details  and  contend  about  many  points  which  are  not 
clearly  settled,  they  have  at  least  demonstrated  that  the  work  is  com- 
posite.^^ After  two  detailed  examinations  of  the  subject  between 
which  as  many  years  intervened  that  is  the  writer's  conviction. 

If  these  apocalypses  are  matters  of  growth  and  were  not  struck  off 
at  one  time,  we  return  to  the  book  of  Daniel  with  the  impression 
made  by  the  facts  already  considered  somewhat  confirmed  by  the 
argument  from  analogy.  The  analogy,  however,  is  not  perfect.  It 
applies  only  to  the  fact  of  composite  character. 

We  must  dismiss  from  our  minds  at  once  any  expectation  that  it  is 
possible  in  Daniel,  as  in  other  apocalypses,  to  find  elements  which 
originated  in  widely  separated  periods.  The  summary  of  the  contents 
given  above  has  made  it  clear  that  each  episode  of  the  book  fits  the 
great  crisis  through  which  the  Jews  were  passing  during  the  years 
168-165  B.C. 

But  suppose  the  material  of  the  book  were  wTitten  within  the  period 
of  one  short  crisis,  does  it  follow  that  there  was  only  one  writer  who 
attempted  to  comfort  and  strengthen  his  brethren?  It  has  been  held 
that  these  stories  were  designed  to  be  read  one  at  a  time  and  were 
made  short  and  pointed  so  that  each  one  might  carry  its  lesson  to  the 
hearer  without  wearying  him."  But  grant  this,  need  we  then  shut  our- 
selves up  to  the  conclusion  that  but  one  individual  undertook  such  a 
task?  There  were  different  companies  of  refugees  from  the  wrath  of 
Antiochus  in  different  places  (i  Mac.  2*°^),  and  it  is  but  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  in  more  than  one  place  some  person  arose  to  comfort 
and  encourage  the  struggling  patriots. 

Working  on  this  supposition  and  applying  it  to  the  facts  which  the 
review  of  the  book  has  brought  to  light,  we  find  in  Daniel  the  work 
of  three  and  possibly  four  authors  besides  an  editor.  One  author 
conceives  of  Daniel  as  living  in  the  reigns  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and 
Belshazzar.  We  will  call  him  A.  He  wrote  the  pamphlets  now 
embodied  in  ch.  2,  4,  5,  7,  and  8.     Possibly,  on  the  ground  of  style 

^*  For  an  account  of  this  criticism,  its  permanent  and  probable  results,  and  its 
unsolved  problems,  see  "  The  Apocalypse  and  Recent  Criticism  "  in  tke  American 
Journal  of  Theology,  October  189S. 

^^  Bevan,  op.  cit.  p.  25.  Bevan  overworks  the  point  in  favor  of  unity  of  author- 
ship. If  boolvS  in  these  days  became  known  by  being  read  aloud  as  he  claims, 
why  are  not  all  the  Old  Testament  books  as  disconnected  as  Daniel? 


So  JOURNAL   OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE. 

and  coloring,  ch.  3  should  be  assigned  to  him  also.  Another  writer 
(B)  conceives  of  Daniel  as  living  in  the  reign  of  Darius  the  Mede. 
He  wrote  the  pamphlets  now  embodied  in  ch.  9  and  6.  A  third  (C) 
conceives  of  Daniel  as  living  under  Cyrus.  He  produced  the  apoca- 
lypse, 10^-12*.  It  was  noted  above  that  ch.  3,  which  on  grounds  of 
style  accords  with  the  writings  of  A,  is  in  subject  matter  quite  incon- 
gruous with  his  work.  Possibly  this  chapter  ought  to  be  assigned  to 
a  different  writer.  Lacking  as  we  do  the  Hebrew  original,  the  point 
is  difficult  to  determine.  We  might  provisionally  call  him  A^.  These 
writers  produced  their  different  pamphlets  contemporaneously  or 
nearly  so  in  different  centres  for  the  comfort  of  their  brethren. 
They  were  independent  of  one  another,  except  as  they  drew  from 
certain  general  ideas  which  were  in  the  air,  some  of  which  will  be 
noted  below.  Soon  after  the  struggle  was  over,  or  more  probably 
during  its  later  stages,  some  editor  gathered  these  pamphlets  together, 
hastily  wrote  ch.  i  as  a  preface,^^  inserted  a  few  editorial  notes  here 
and  there,  and  appended  12-^1"  ^'^  as  a  conclusion.  The  editor's  plan 
seems  to  have  been  to  group  together  the  narratives  about  his  heroes, 
and  then  the  pamphlets  which  make  Daniel  speak  in  the  first  per- 
son. No  doubt  he  arranged  these  two  parts  respectively  in  what  he 
regarded  as  the  chronological  order. 

The  results  here  stated  may  be  more  clearly  indicated  in  the 
table  on  facing  page. 

A  comparison  of  the  work  of  the  different  writers  whom  we  have 
detected  tends  to  strengthen  the  conviction  that  the  analysis  rests 
upon  a  basis  of  fact.  A,  who  conceives  of  Daniel  as  living  under 
Babylonian  kings,  delights  in  weird  imagery,  by  which  he  shadows 
forth  impending  events.  He  revels  in  the  interpretation  of  enigmas. 
Not  only  are  his  narratives  connected  with  Babylonian  kings,  but  he 
uses  Babylonian  names  and  words,  such  as  Belteshazzar  {Ba/af-su- 
usur),  Arioch  {Eji-Akuy ,  and  Mene,  mene,  tekel,  upharsin  {inani 
manii  siklii  ii  parsiy^,  and  draws,  as  Gunkel  has  shown  and  as  we 
have  already  noted  in  part  above,^^  from  the  Babylonian  cosmological 
material  for  a  considerable  portion  of  his  imagery. 

^  The  haste  of  the  editor  is  indicated  in  many  ways.  One  instance  appears  in 
i2i.  The  text  of  ii^  probably  read  as  the  LXX  does,  "the  first  year  of  Cyrus," 
so  that  the  last  date  in  the  pamphlets,  as  the  editor  arranged  them,  was  Cyrus's 
first  year.  Glancing  at  this  hastily,  he  wrote  in  i-^,  "  the  first  year  of  Cyrus," 
overlooking  the  fact  that  in  10^  Daniel  was  still  alive  in  the  third  year  of  Cyrus. 

^"  Cf.  Fried.  Delitzsch's  "  Glossae  Babylonicae,"  in  Baer's  Libri  Danielii 
Ezrae  et  Nehemiae. 

58  Cf.  supra,  note  29.  69  p.  72. 


BARTON  :    THE   COMPOSITION    OF   THE    BOOK   OF   DANIEL. 


= 

3C" 

/— \ 

ij 

r 

r 

w 

X 

[X] 

J^ 

§ 

O 

D 

n 

o 

*-» 

13 

X 

Ss 

r 

III 

^ — ' 

^ 

,            • 

5 

J 

1-4 
'S 

Xi- 

X" 

n 

ii 

a- 

U' 

r 

r 

n 

r- 

Til- 

E 

t 

«>5 

C 

.2 

n 

,^^ 

'55 

pi 

n 
c- 

n> 

F 
a 

3 

a 

o 
U 

c 

X 

a. 

•n-      -* 

^^ 

r 

r~ 

^ 

►S 

'I- 

ON 
■H                 M 

M 

^-^ 

Cn 

I 

.-T 

:s       ■ 

>       '? 

>? 

•A 

^' 

■>< 

43 

- 

, 

» 

^ 

^ 

_ 

u 

d 

ro 

^ 

1 

"-' 

rv-.    .^ 

< 

■* 

•  ■-I 

■f 

U 

X 

^_ 

~ 

<3 

7 

» 

*_ 

> 

00 

f 

1 

< 

ro 

.-• 

:a 

■- 

:5        >        > 

■> 

43 

<*                     s. 

^ 

_ 

U 

* 

$2  JOURNAL   OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE. 

This  writer  is  therefore  peculiarly  Babylonian  in  his  culture.  With 
him  we  must  class  our  questionable  A".  His  setting  is  also  Baby- 
lonian, as  well  as  his  names.**  As  we  have  seen,  his  material  is  hard 
to  reconcile  with  A's,  and  his  vocabulary  contains  a  larger  proportion 
of  foreign  words  than  any  other  part  of  the  book  of  Daniel.  Hia 
style  is  the  same  as  that  of  A ;  and  it  is  this  which  makes  us  doubtful 
whether  ch.  3  does  not  belong  to  the  latter  writer.  These  Baby- 
lonian sections  bear  striking  marks  of  style.  Those  peculiar  and  re- 
curring expressions,  to  which  critics  have  pointed  as  the  stylistic 
marks  of  the  book,  occur  almost  exclusively  here.  It  is  not  fair  to 
attribute  them  to  the  Aramaic  translator,  since  we  have  found  the 
parts  in  which  they  indubitably  occur  to  be  so  largely  the  work  of 
one  author. 

The  writer  C  conceives  of  Daniel  as  living  under  Cyrus.  He  is  in 
a  way  as  characteristically  Persian  as  A  is  Babylonian.  It  is  true 
that  he  knows  no  more  of  Persian  kings  than  the  Old  Testament 
tells ;  but  his  conception  of  angels  shows  that  he  had  been  exposed 
to  Persian  culture  somewhat  as  A  had  been  to  Babylonian."^  This 
writer,  too,  knows  much  more  of  the  details  of  Syro-Egyptian  his- 
tory than  either  of  the  others.  He  does  not  vaguely  refer  to  "  ten 
kings,"  as  ch.  7  does,  but,  as  we  have  seen,  follows  with  considerable 
detail  the  history  of  the  Ptolemies  and  Seleucidae.  He  seems  to 
have  had  access  to  some  notes  on  the  Ptolemaic-Seleucid  history."" 
One  may  hazard  the  guess  that  they  came  to  him  from  some  friend 
resident  at  the  Egyptian  court. 

The  writer  B  is  as  Jewish  in  his  culture  as  the  others  are  Baby- 
lonian and  Persian.  One  of  his  pamphlets  is  saturated  with  thought 
derived  from  other  parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  while  the  other 
teaches,  by  means  of  a  powerful  object  lesson,  the  importance  of 

*^'' Dura  (Z>«rM, 'wall'),  Shadrach  (Sudur-A&u,  '  comm3ind  of  Aku'),  ]Me- 
sh2ich(A/i-ia-Aiu,  'who  is  what  Aku  is?'  i.e.  'who  is  like  Aku?')  and  Abednego 
(^Abad-Nabii  or  Arad-Nabu,  'servant  of  Nabu').     Cf.  Delitzsch  in  Baer,  op.  cit. 

•'i  Meinhold  in  Strack  and  Zockler's  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar  viii.  281,  seems 
inclined  to  admit  a  Persian  origin  for  the  '  watchers,'  which  appear  in  ^'^-  i*-  -° 
(English  413-  !"•  -'').  The  term,  which  appears  in  those  passages  for  the  first  time, 
and  not  again  in  Daniel,  does  not,  as  Bevan  and  Behrmann  have  perceived,  refer 
to  a  class  of  angels,  but  seems  rather  to  be  a  name  for  angels  in  general,  as  in  the 
book  of  Enoch.  In  the  latter  work  it  sometimes  means  archangel,  as  in  20' 
39'2. 13  402  61^2  yi?^  but  it  is  also  applied  to  fallen  angels  in  i''  lo^-  ^^  122-  <  13I0 
141-  3  15-  i6^-2  pii5_  jhe  Persian  origin  of  the  term,  if  Persian  it  be,  is  not  so 
direct  and  palpable  as  are  C's  angelic  conceptions. 

•^-  Supra,  p.  76. 


BARTON  :    THE    COMPOSITION   OF   THE    BOOK   OF   DANIEL.  8^ 

the  maintenance  on  the  part  of  the  Jews  of  their  private  devotions 
as  well  as  their  public  worship.  He  is  innocent  alike  of  historical 
culture  and  of  the  ways  of  courts.  His  chronology  of  the  events  in 
the  history  of  the  Hebrew  nation  is  mistaken,  and  his  Darius  the 
Mede  unknown  to  history.  His  picture  of  a  king  coerced  to-day  by 
his  nobles,  but  boldly  executing  them  to-morrow,  is,  to  say  the 
least,  naif.  But  though  he  knows  little  outside  the  Old  Testament, 
he  knows  well  the  Scriptures  of  his  people,  and  seeks  with  devout 
earnestness  to  contribute  his  mite  of  encouragement  to  the  struggling 
patriots. 

The  editor  welded  into  one  the  work  of  these  three  writers,  pre- 
fixing an  appropriate  preface,  that  all  the  means  of  encouragement 
which  had  been  employed  might  be  preserved  and  become  more 
effective ;  hence  our  book  of  Daniel. 

4.   Objections. 

In  closing  we  anticipate  some  objections  which  may  be  made  to 
the  analysis  here  presented. 

1.  It  may  be  urged  that  our  analysis  ignores  an  obvious  clue  to 
literary  difference,  in  refusing  to  make  the  difference  of  person 
exhibited  in  ch.  i-6  and  7-12  a  means  of  detecting  authorship. 
This  objection  has,  perhaps,  been  met  sufficiently  already.  A  clue 
which,  however  obvious,  has  for  two  hundred  years  proved  disap- 
pointing may  safely  be  abandoned. 

2.  It  will  probably  be  said  that  such  an  analysis  ought  to  be 
accompanied,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Pentateuch,  by  lists  of  words 
which  should  prove  differences  of  vocabulary  in  the  different  parts. 
This  may,  to  a  certain  extent,  be  done,  and  the  writer  has  partially 
prepared  such  lists ;  but  where  the  material  is  so  slight,  and  even 
what  there  is  exists  in  two  languages,  such  lists  could  only  represent, 
in  the  main,  arra^  Xeyo/xeva,  and  would,  form  a  precarious  basis  for 
argument. 

3.  Another  objection  which  we  anticipate  is,  that  such  a  method 
of  composition  as  is  supposed  is  hardly  conceivable  except  when 
differences  of  age  can  be  demonstrated  between  the  difterent  docu- 
ments. There  are,  however,  in  all  probability  different  documents 
underlying  our  Synoptic  Gospels  ;  and  yet  no  one  would  hold  that 
many  years  elapsed  between  the  composition  of  the  "Urmarcus" 
and  the  "  Logia  "  of  Matthew.  The  analogy  between  the  composi- 
tion of  these  writings  and  the  composition  of  Daniel  is  not    com- 


g^  JOURNAL   OF   BIBLICAL   LITERATURE. 

plete,  but  is  suggestive.  In  the  case  of  Daniel,  legends  of  the  distant 
past  are  given  form  and  sent  out  by  different  writers  under  the 
influence  of  a  sharp  crisis.  In  the  case  of  the  evangelic  writings, 
comparatively  recent  events  are  put  on  record  by  different  persons 
in  obedience  to  a  well-defined  need  of  the  infant  church.  In  the 
latter  case  more  than  three  years  may  have  intervened  between  the 
dates  of  writing.  The  necessity  for  writing  was  produced,  not  by  an 
acute  crisis,  but  by  a  more  gentle  development. 

4.  It  may  be  urged  that  there  is  an  agreement  of  the  narratives  in 
certain  points  which  indicates  dependence  of  part  upon  part. 

a.  Chapter  8-'' and  12*  agree  in  representing  Daniel  as  receiving 
a  command  to  "  shut  up  the  vision."  The  command  is  designed  to 
explain  why  the  visions,  if  received  in  the  exile,  were  unknown  till 
the  Maccabsean  period.  Surely  so  simple  a  device  to  avoid  a  com- 
mon and  obvious  difficulty  may  have  occurred  to -two  persons  inde- 
pendently. 

b.  Again,  T^riH,  as  a  technical  name  for  the  burnt  offering,  is 
common  to  ch.  8"-^^  and  i  \^^.  Is  it  not  obvious  that  such  an  expres- 
sion must  have  been  on  the  lips  of  many  at  the  time  to  have  been 
used  by  a  writer  at  all?  Had  it  not  been,  no  writer  could  hope  to  be 
understood  by  it. 

c.  In  like  manner  we  have  in  (f  Utr^^  D^itlp'w^,  in  ii^^  pp^H 
DJ2t^SP,  and  in  8^'^  Ufyd  1>^^T\,  expressions  which  are,  no  doubt, 
a41  based  upon  the  same  idea.  Nesde"'^  who  is  followed  by  Bevan"* 
and  Behrmann,'^  made  in  1S83  a  suggestion  which  is  a  most  plausible 
explanation  of  these  expressions.  He  regards  them  as  an  intentional 
disfigurement  of  DS2t^  b"D  of  the  Phoenician  inscriptions  —  a  tide 
of  the  Semitic  equivalent  of  the  Greek  (Olympian)  Zeus,  whose  wor- 
ship Antiochus  was  endeavoring  to  establish.  Such  a  phrase  origi- 
nating in  a  grim  jest  at  such  a  time  would  be  exceedingly  popular 
and  would  be  in  everybody's  mouth.  Its  presence  is  rather  a  mark 
of  date  than  of  unity  of  authorship. 

d.  The  coincidence  of  the  3}  times  in  ch.  7^  with  the  half  week 
of  ch.  ^"  is  a  more  serious  stumbUng-block.  The  idea  is  too  unique 
and  unusual  to  have  sprung  up  spontaneously  and  independently  in 
two  minds.  But  if  we  grant  this,  it  does  not  follow  that  B  had  ever 
seen  A's  work  when  he  wrote  his  first  pamphlet.  In  a  time  of  mortal 
struggle  like  the  Maccabaean  crisis,  a  hint  on  prophetic  authority  that 

63  Zeitschrift  fiir  altlesl.  Wissemchaft,  1SS3,  p.  248. 
6*  Op.  cit.  p.  193.  65  Op.  cit.  p.  7S. 


BARTON  :    THE   COMPOSITION   OF   THE    BOOK    OF    DANIEL.  85 

the  painful  episode  would  be  short,  would  naturally  spread  with  elec- 
trical swiftness  all  over  the  land.  We  have  only  to  suppose  that 
it  reached  the  ears  of  B  stripped  as  it  very  likely  would  be  of  the 
imagery  in  which  A  had  embodied  it,  and  we  can  easily  imagine  how 
it  would  set  such  a  patriot  to  studying  the  Scriptures  to  find  authority 
or  a  setting  for  it  there.  No  closer  dependence  than  this  need  be 
supposed. 

e.  The  similar  words  in  which  a  man  of  the  captivity  is  described 
in  2-^  5^^  and  6^'*  may  be  urged  as  a  stylistic  similarity  which  mili- 
tates against  our  theory.  It  is  not  difficult,  though,  to  suppose  that 
by  the  Maccabsean  period  the  captivity  had  been  so  often  referred 
to  that  stereotyped  phrases  for  that  purpose  were  in  the  air. 

The  references  to  fasting  in  9^  and  10-  are  urged  by  Schrader*^^ 
in  favor  of  unity  of  authorship,  but  the  idea  of  fasting  when  one  or 
one's  nation  is  in  trouble  is  not  an  idea  for  which  any  Jew  during  the 
Maccabsean  period,  or  for  some  time  before,  could  claim  originality. 
It  must  under  such  circumstances  have  been  a  most  common  practice. 
Cf.  Neh.  i^ 

5.  It  may  further  be  objected  to  the  theory  advocated  above  that, 
even  if  it  be  granted  that  the  pamphlets  of  which  Daniel  is  composed 
fall  into  three  classes,  with  Babylonian,  Hebrew,  and  Persian  settings 
respectively,  one  writer  with  fertile  imagination  and  dramatic  power 
may  easily  have  composed  them  all.  Such  a  supposition  is  extremely 
unlikely,  as  it  is  contrary  to  all  Old  Testament  analogy.  The  stories 
of  the  Pentateuch  which,  Hke  Abraham's  denial  of  his  wife,  receive 
different  settings  in  Genesis  12  and  20,  are  assigned  to  different 
authors.  Job,  the  most  imaginative  and  dramatic  book  in  the  canon, 
has  nothing  in  it  approaching  the  consistent  clothing  of  certain  situa- 
tions in  different  national  cultures  which  we  find  here.  The  books  of 
Tobit  and  Judith,  which  are  largely  works  of  the  imagination,  and 
which  reveal  much  power  to  charmingly  tell  a  tale,  afford  in  this 
respect  no  parallel.  Indeed,  it  is  doubtful  if  any  such  parallel  can  be 
found  in  pre-Christian  Jewish  literature,  and  so  far  as  I  have  observed 
none  appears  in  any  of  the  parts  of  an  apocalypse  which  were  pro- 
duced by  a  single  author.  The  supposition  that  a  Hebrew  writer 
could  throw  himself  into  his  art  in  such  a  manner  as  to  consistently 
keep  up  all  these  parts  is  contrary  to  the  simplicity  of  the  old  Hebrew 
nature.  It  should  be  noted  too  that  the  phenomena  to  which  atten- 
tion has  been  called  in  this  article  are  not  all  of  a  nature  to  be 
produced  by  an  artistic  writer  such  as  the  objection  to  our  theory 

66  De  Wette-Schrader,  Einleitung,  1S69,  p.  506. 


86  JOURNAL    OF    BIBLICAL    LITERATURE. 

supposes.  The  coupling  of  Hebrew  culture  with  the  impossible 
Median  setting  is  not  art  in  the  sense  in  which  the  union  of  Baby- 
lonian culture  with  a  Babylonian  setting  or  the  union  of  Persian  cult- 
ure with  a  Persian  setting,  might  be  art.  The  thing  has  not  the 
natural  fitness  which  artistic  work  would  require.  It  is  the  palpable 
product  of  an  intensely  pious  but  badly  informed  person.  It  is  con- 
trary to  the  nature  of  Jewish  writers,  as  we  know  them  in  the  Old 
Testament  and  Apocrypha,  to  suppose  that  one  author  wrote  these 
various  classes  of  pamphlets,  and  the  nature  of  the  pamphlets  them- 
selves is  such  that  they  cannot  be  regarded  as  the  work  of  a  literary 
artist. 

For  the  most  part,  then,  these  objections  disappear  when  we  remem- 
ber the  stock  of  ideas  and  common  expressions  which  were  the 
common  property  of  the  time.  The  general  notion  that  a  wise  and 
saintly  man  named  Daniel  had  lived  in  Mesopotamia  during  the  exile 
and  that  lessons  for  the  time  could  best  be  conveyed  to  men's  minds 
if  represented  as  his  experiences  or  visions  —  not  a  violent  supposition 
—  is  all  that  the  conditions  of  our  theory  require,"'' 

6"  The  angel  Gabriel  whose  name  appears  in  8^^  and  c^^  seems  also  to  have  been 
a  part  of  the  common  stock  of  religious  ideas,  like  Raphael  in  the  book  of  Tobit. 


ja^TE  DUE 

^^' 

w       ~ — 

I 

Si» 

L. 

f""*^*!!!*-... 

CAVLORO 

PRINTEO  IMU.».* 

Gaylord  Bros. 

Makers 

Syracuse    N .  Y, 

PAT.  I»H.  21,  1B« 


